Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Progressive Constitutionalist versus Originalist Constitutionalist
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Yaba Daba Do" data-source="post: 3617182" data-attributes="member: 57161"><p>There is a legal process by which the constitution can be amended and if this legislative process is followed I have no problem with it whatsoever. The supreme courts job is to rule on existing law, not create new law, that is congress' job. The constitution has been around for 231 years and it has 27 amendments.</p><p></p><p>The only way progressives can seem to get their ideas through is to find and appoint judges that agree with them politically. They will say the constitution is a "living, breathing" document, which means they can interpret it any way that fits their needs and <strong>feelings</strong> at that time instead of what was actually intended when the document was written. This way they can get around the process of trying push laws through that they know won't pass, they can instead appoint someone that will legislate from the bench.</p><p></p><p>Originalists see the constitution as it was written. It means what it says and doesn't have some hidden meaning to suit your needs at the time. If times have changed that much and something needs to be amended then you go through the amendment process and make it law but you don't let a small group change laws through the judiciary for the masses just because that's the direction they want the country going in the future.</p><p></p><p>You should not agree with every decision a judge makes even if you view him as on "your side of the isle", if you do then the judge is probably not very good at his job.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yaba Daba Do, post: 3617182, member: 57161"] There is a legal process by which the constitution can be amended and if this legislative process is followed I have no problem with it whatsoever. The supreme courts job is to rule on existing law, not create new law, that is congress' job. The constitution has been around for 231 years and it has 27 amendments. The only way progressives can seem to get their ideas through is to find and appoint judges that agree with them politically. They will say the constitution is a "living, breathing" document, which means they can interpret it any way that fits their needs and [B]feelings[/B] at that time instead of what was actually intended when the document was written. This way they can get around the process of trying push laws through that they know won't pass, they can instead appoint someone that will legislate from the bench. Originalists see the constitution as it was written. It means what it says and doesn't have some hidden meaning to suit your needs at the time. If times have changed that much and something needs to be amended then you go through the amendment process and make it law but you don't let a small group change laws through the judiciary for the masses just because that's the direction they want the country going in the future. You should not agree with every decision a judge makes even if you view him as on "your side of the isle", if you do then the judge is probably not very good at his job. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Progressive Constitutionalist versus Originalist Constitutionalist
Top